The only way forward for Star Trek

[MattWallace]

Very true and Trek could have used more like that and fewer of the "we saved civilization from the dreaded <blank> of the week".

Kirk's actions in PLW had consequences and we never saw the result of them. He just wandered away and never looked back. How many died because of what the Federation and the Klingons did there?

 

[plynch]

A way forward rather than spinning round the money (ticket sales) tree would be for some person with a vision to somehow convince CBS to let him or her use Trek to tell stories in accordance with that vision. As opposed to hiring someone kewl to execute something called Trek in a kewl fashion.

Who that would be, idk, nor why CBS would go for it. But that might be "forward," even were the vision not to my liking.

 

[Nerys Myk]

A way forward rather than spinning round the money (ticket sales) tree would be for some person with a vision to somehow convince CBS to let him or her use Trek to tell stories in accordance with that vision. As opposed to hiring someone kewl to execute something called Trek in a kewl fashion.

Who that would be, idk, nor why CBS would go for it. But that might be "forward," even were the vision not to my liking.

One man's "kewl" is another man's "visionary".

 

[Captain Robert April]

The guy who goes for "kewl" usually can't even spell "visionary".

 

[Nerys Myk]

The guy who goes for "kewl" usually can't even spell "visionary".

Its an eye of the beholder thing.

 

[xortex]

A way forward rather than spinning round the money (ticket sales) tree would be for some person with a vision to somehow convince CBS to let him or her use Trek to tell stories in accordance with that vision. As opposed to hiring someone kewl to execute something called Trek in a kewl fashion.

Who that would be, idk, nor why CBS would go for it. But that might be "forward," even were the vision not to my liking.

Plinch, I always feel like Elvis is looking right through me there, but you hit it, submarining another property and labeling it Star Trek is my ideal way to go except that the creator of said property would lose creative control of developing that property.

 

[EmperorTiberius]

LOL, people are so unoriginal and many don't even know what Star Trek is about. It's not about jet fighters in space idea that was JJ trek, or some "gritty" trash.

It's about a vision of a better future, it's about humans improving themselves, being better than they are. If you don't like it, watch something else.

If another creative genius comes along, he can easily set a series in regular timeline in the 26th century, new technologies would be invented, with new characters, and new stories - but they would all be linked with the theme of Star Trek. New generations of kids would be in awe of this strange new universe, and perhaps some of them would be inspired by it.

This is what happened with me when Gene decided to create something slightly different in the 80's instead of going back and rebooting and telling something that was already told. Of course, all this depends on someone original and in love with Trek taking over the franchise (what an ugly word with all its connotations), not some quick scheming money-grabber

 

[xortex]

That's what we're talking about - tailoring something into Trek rather than tailoring Trek into something.

 

[EmperorTiberius]

That's what we're talking about - tailoring something into Trek rather than tailoring Trek into something.

It's not what the "Let's reboot tng and tos" crowd are talking about. Thankfully, such an "original" show would be such a failure, it would be cancelled after a season.

 

[plynch]

The guy who goes for "kewl" usually can't even spell "visionary".

Its an eye of the beholder thing.

Sure. And this is not to say that stylistic vision isn't vision. I just get the feeling in this era of "franchise," you're going to get the corporation hiring someone to make more product, rather than a writer/producer itching to do something, who makes use of a certain format a la GR. Not to saintify him - that's a different thread!- but such was the genesis of Trek and TNG.

Nor is this really a knock on JJ et al., who definitely executed Star Trek visually nicely throughout, esp. the prologue.

Maybe Firefly fits my bill; I am unfamiliar with it, but it was the brainchild of someone who oversaw its production, right?

 

[xortex]

It's got to be it's own thing, about something else, but about trekking to the stars and then just called Star Trek - as in another property catered to it's namesake. Even 'Prometheus' could have been called Star Trek if it was tailored differently.

 

[RandyS]

I'd like to see a more grown up Trek. When people die, they stay dead. People lie, cheat, steal, love, cry. Let's get rid of the idealistic 60's and face the future with an eye to a more realistic portrayal of humanity.

Then it wouldn't be Star Trek, which is about rising above the nonsense we live with in the real world.

If anything, we need to bring back the idealism of the 60's (a time I'm sorry I didn't live though, although it was close) and dial back all this angsty ambiguity.

 

[RandyS]

The guy who goes for "kewl" usually can't even spell "visionary".

He clearly can't spell "cool" either.

 

[CaptainMatt]

A rceasting of Kirk and his crew has already happened with the Abrams film. I do not think another reboot will take place so soon at this point in time.

 

[Nerys Myk]

The guy who goes for "kewl" usually can't even spell "visionary".

Its an eye of the beholder thing.

Sure. And this is not to say that stylistic vision isn't vision. I just get the feeling in this era of "franchise," you're going to get the corporation hiring someone to make more product, rather than a writer/producer itching to do something, who makes use of a certain format a la GR. Not to saintify him - that's a different thread!- but such was the genesis of Trek and TNG.

Nor is this really a knock on JJ et al., who definitely executed Star Trek visually nicely throughout, esp. the prologue.

Maybe Firefly fits my bill; I am unfamiliar with it, but it was the brainchild of someone who oversaw its production, right?

Yes it was and I recommend it.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

The prime timeline is dead and gone. Only the books and fanfiction will continue it, well, essentially the same thing ones just paid.

Only in your wildest dreams...

They're making another movie based on Trek 2009 - because it was a huge success as far as the studio is concerned.

They're not making any movie or TV series based on oldTrek.

The so-called prime timeline is dead and gone, except in reruns and in your fantasies.

BTW, the "sparky" thing was tediously repetitious and lame three years ago. Lose it.

 

[Captain Robert April]

Make me.

 

[Mutai Sho-Rin]

Make me.

No need to be childish today. Cool it with the intentionally insulting nicknames.

 

[Warped9]

Is a reboot of the Original Series.

A recasting of the Kirk crew and a reintroduction to some of the old foes encountered in the 5 year mission.

Also a tie in to Enterprise, by encountering some Archer enemies, eg Suliban.

Thats my humble opinion, imagine Kirk with enhanced visual effects at his disposal

ST09 or haven't you been paying attention? A colossal fail in my view, but I'm used to being in the minority.

 

[xortex]

Timeline is a meanigless and irrelovant issue and doesn't have to even be addressed - It's the future. there's something called Starfleet, a branch of the Federation. That's it. the less the audience knows the better as it keeps them off balance. WNMHGB started with a double mystery. First was the setting aboard a Starship and then compounded by even that Captain not knowing what was going on. So where are we coupled with what's going on and 'The impossible has happened' made it dizzying. As in a mystery in a mystery. An enigma shrouded in a puzzle. Every screenwriter knows to jump right into the heart of the story's action. It would either be a prequel or a sequel to anything resembling canon so there really is no cannon or baggage. It doesn't even make sense to think of canon for that reason.